When I'm not under exam pressure, I study a lot. When I'm under exam pressure, I digress a lot. Somebody out there knows the psychodynamics of this; please respond with the explanation. It may be related to the phenomenon of increased movie theater attendance during economic depressions.
For the similarly afflicted, this post is the first of a series of irrelevant philosophical conundrums to ponder when you should be studying for exams.
Here is the issue du jour, including corollaries: if you take an exam and give an answer which differs from what's in your textbook, on the teacher's PowerPoint slides, and lecture notes, but which is nevertheless correct based on external evidence (i.e., the aforementioned sources are wrong), should you be given credit for your answer? If you are not a marginal student, how far should you go in fighting for the two points? What should be done with teachers who are so emotionally attached to their false beliefs that they can never admit being wrong, especially when correction comes from a student? Should such teachers be allowed to continue their employment?
The relevant psychodynamics is called "cognitive dissonance", a heavily studied new discovery in the seventies, now subsumed in the general rubric of psychology.
Just so we all know (yawn) what I'm talking about, here's a sample question from Biochemistry:
A purified protein sample is subject to stepwise degradation by Edman's reagent and found to contain the sequence his-gly-arg-pro. It is then treated with the serine protease trypsin. Where will trypsin cleave this protein?
a) on the C-terminus side of histidine
b) on the C-terminus side of glycine
c) on the C-terminus side of arginine
d) trypsin will not cleave this protein
The answer, according to the fourth edition of Lippincott's Biochemistry, Chapter 2, is "c". But that's wrong, because trypsin will not do its thing if arginine (or also its other target, lysine) is followed by a proline residue. The real answer, then, is "d".
Students who answer "c" should get credit because they read the book, the PowerPoints, and the handouts, all of which are wrong. The nerd who researched everything online and discovered all the omissions in the book -- which are needed to keep its size down -- is in possession of the real Truth. Should s/he be given credit? What if the teacher doesn't budge because s/he will "lose face"?
If you want an example of something from a book which is actually wrong, and not merely an omission, look in Goljan's Rapid Review Pathology. It says Charcot-Bouchard aneurysms are macroaneurysms, but that's wrong. They're microaneurysms. Teachers who are cult followers of Goljan will have a difficult time with this. They probably all belong to the Flat Earth Society.
This post is not related to any incident at school
, but the issue has come up occasionally in other contexts.
Now put down those books you're studying for the second block exam, and respond.